Conteras-Ortega v. United States
- John Tunheim
- 0:19-cv-00004
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Conteras-Ortega v. United States, Judge Tunheim denied a habeas petition and dismissed the action without prejudice after finding its claim not viable.
Bernardo Conteras-Ortega, whose habeas petition seeking transfer to a warmer facility was denied and whose action was dismissed without prejudice; the United States was the respondent.
What happened
In Conteras-Ortega v. United States, Bernardo Conteras-Ortega asked the court to transfer him from the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, to a facility in a warmer climate. He said the transfer was essential for proper treatment of his medical condition.
A magistrate judge explained that the Bureau of Prisons has broad discretion to decide where federal prisoners are held, and Conteras-Ortega had not alleged that the Bureau failed to consider relevant factors, used a forbidden factor, or improperly delegated its decision. Conteras-Ortega did not want the court to treat his allegations as a separate claim that officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He objected to the recommendation to dismiss his habeas petition.
Judge John R. Tunheim ruled that the objection did not challenge the reasons for the recommendation. He overruled the objection, adopted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Conteras-Ortega v. United States · No. 0:19-cv-00004
- John Tunheim
- May 6, 2019
Background
Bernardo Conteras-Ortega, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition asking the court to order his transfer from the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, to a facility in a warmer climate. He alleged that the warmer climate was essential for proper treatment of his medical condition.
A magistrate judge explained that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has wide discretion to decide where federal prisoners are detained. The magistrate judge concluded that the petition did not allege that the Bureau failed to consider relevant factors, considered a forbidden factor, or unlawfully delegated its responsibility for deciding where Conteras-Ortega should reside.
The magistrate judge also noted that the allegations could be understood as a civil-rights claim alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs. The court did not convert the matter into that type of case because Conteras-Ortega would then have to pay the civil filing fee or apply to proceed without prepaying it and would be subject to the statutory rules concerning repeated unsuccessful filings. Conteras-Ortega later made clear that he did not want to proceed on that theory. He instead asked the court to rule on his petition as filed, or dismiss it without prejudice and return the $5 filing fee. He also asked the court to consider whether the First Step Act of 2018 supported transfer to a warmer climate.
Objection and analysis
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the habeas petition without prejudice because the habeas claims were not viable. Conteras-Ortega objected, arguing that his transfer request was not a civil-rights claim because it did not challenge the adequacy of any particular medical treatment. He said he was receiving good treatment and wanted confinement in one of several centers in Florida because he believed those facilities would be more appropriate.
The district court determined that this objection did not challenge the basis of the recommendation. It confirmed that Conteras-Ortega did not seek to litigate a deliberate-indifference claim and did not provide a reason why his habeas claims were legally viable.
Disposition
The court overruled Conteras-Ortega’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not decide whether Conteras-Ortega should be transferred to a warmer facility on the merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.